When does a baby receive it's soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

I actually asked a similar question on the apologist forum a few months ago - essentially “do our souls pre-exist our bodies?” Fr. Vincent Serpa replied that it was church teaching that the soul is created at the moment of conception.

Yes, but it may not have been a human soul.
Aquinas following the science of the time held their was successive ensoulment - plant/animal/human.

Also, modern embryology shows that personhood is actually fluid in the first 24 hrs or so after conception (ie chimeras etc) where individual cells could each become a child or two clumps of cells (up to 8 cells each at the most I think) could fuse again and become just one child.
This suggests Aquinas/Aristotle could still be right - this is typical of “plant souls” (eg fungal colonies) where the boundary between individual and commune is fluid.

And what makes them change from plant to animal to human in the first place you may ask?
Well, believe it or not, they held it to be the formative efficacy of the (“spiritual”) semen which “architected” or breathed upon the biological matter provided by the (“earth”) mother but did not itself contribute any matter to the process itself
A mirror of Genesis 1

(This is probably why Aquinas held that Jesus was fully ensouled at conception - because it was the Divine Architect (the Holy Spirit) at work, far more efficaciously than human semen).

Now we know that isn’t true - which is pretty much the death knell of Aristotles/Aquinas’s theory.

However there is something about going from plant to animal to human form that does still make a lot of sense.

 

[siamus2k13]

My answer.

A baby receives it’s soul In utero.

Accept it or reject it.

 

[Bookcat]

St Thomas Aquinas’s position on the Immaculate Conception

Contrary to the claims of the Modernists, St Thomas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the principles of St Thomas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. It is indescribably frustrating when otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas’s supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the “arguments, doctrine, and principles” of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.

Not commenting on this text there - and I have not fully read it -for there is not good reason for doing so -for it is from a so called “Traditionalist site” that is against the Second Vatican Council.

I understand you just ran across that page in your search -as you have given other good sources -such as EWTN -but I wanted to note that such is NOT a good site to get any information from.

I am not saying that St. Thomas rejected the Immaculate Conception - of course he did not have the same biological understanding of Conception that we do -but he actually held that she -*Mary *- was without sin -including original sin.

 

[Bookcat]

The Dogma is focused there on the moment of her conception. And at that moment --she Mary-- was preserved from original sin. If she had no soul -there soul be no her. No Mary. No-one to be Immaculate from the very moment.

One can infer “ensoulment at conception” from the infallible Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1854- that Mary (the person…) was preserved from Original Sin from the moment of her conception.

Her conception – her – she being a person - body and soul - she was preserved from original sin.

Here is the Infallible Dogma proclaimed by the Pope in 1854

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that* the most Blessed Virgin Mary*, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

And then if one wishes to bring Private Revelation into things – one can then look to the Private Revelation of Mary at Lourdes which occurred not long after that dogma was defined–she said “I am the Immaculate Conception” (not I was conceived immaculately).

Note too the language in English translation: I

 

[Abba]

Bookcat,

I don’t see what is being gained by repetition.

I was the first to bring up the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as proof that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception. However, when I realized that the idea of ensoulment taking place at 40 days for males and 80 days for females after fertilization originated in the Catholic Church from Saint Thomas Aquinas - a Doctor of the Church, I thought there must be something else than meets the eyes here.

I continued my research and realized that ‘conception’ meant something different to him than it does to us now. This is also the reason why it is illogical to throw Bible verses at Aquinas. I think we can all agree that Aquinas knew his Sacred Scripture. So, it is a red-herring to throw, for instance, Psalm 51:5 and walk away pretending that ‘we showed him, he just did not know his sacred scripture’. This would be false as he did know his Bible. It would also be a red-herring to throw the Immaculate Conception at him. If we follow his understanding; Saint Thomas Aquinas would have (as other exactly did in 1854) when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared - thinking as others did back then (exactly because of his teachings) - that when she was conceived (on the 80th day after fertilization) Blessed Mother Mary was immaculately conceived.

We need to get passed that as, a valid refutation would be regarding the philosophical and scientific understandings which led him to such a conclusion. Believe me when I say that I am know about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, I know about that powerful and beautiful ‘I’, I have also been to Lourdes and am very familiar with Mother Mary’s presence at Lourdes. It is not that I need to understand the Immaculate Conception. It, however, does not establish that ensoulment occurs at fertilization.

+++

"18. Moreover, the Angelic Doctor pushed his philosophic inquiry into the reasons and principles of things, which because they are most comprehensive and contain in their bosom, so to say, the seeds of almost infinite truths, were to be unfolded in good time by later masters and with a goodly yield. And as he also used this philosophic method in the refutation of error, he won this title to distinction for himself: that, single-handed, he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in after-times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.

1. For these reasons most learned men, in former ages especially, of the highest repute in theology and philosophy, after mastering with infinite pains the immortal works of Thomas, gave themselves up not so much to be instructed in his angelic wisdom as to be nourished upon it. It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others all testify that they are bound by this law.
2. And, here, how pleasantly one’s thoughts fly back to those celebrated schools and universities which flourished of old in Europe - to Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, to Douay, Toulouse, and Louvain, to Padua and Bologna, to Naples and Coimbra, and to many another! All know how the fame of these seats of learning grew with their years, and that their judgment, often asked in matters of grave moment, held great weight everywhere. And we know how in those great homes of human wisdom, as in his own kingdom, Thomas reigned supreme; and that the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor." vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris_en.html

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” Aquinas - Book of Sentences.

Peace

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

I don’t see what is being gained by repetition.

What is gained? I am repeating what I posted - because it has nothing there to do with St. Thomas. Nothing. Why do you keep discussing St. Thomas in response?

Please do not conflate posts

 

[Abba]

What is gained? I am repeating what I posted - because it has nothing there to do with St. Thomas. Nothing. Why do you keep discussing St. Thomas in response?

Please do not conflate posts

By referring to the Immaculate Conception, you mean to prove that ensoulment occurs at fertilization, correct? And that as such, it also proves that ensoulment at fertilization is a teaching of the Church, correct?

Now if you are correct, the Franciscans at that gather of the OP are committing heresy. Of course, it has not been made clear if the ‘Franciscan’ group included actual religious. At any rate, some people are teaching there and if you are correct they are heretical. How do you explain there behaviour? This would also mean that millions of Catholics in history were committing heresy, Saint Thomas Aquinas included, and all the Jewish people as they have the book of Psalms.

Why are you certain that ‘conception’ has meant through out history, cross-culturally and to each and every person on earth and that has ever been on this earth as = fertilization? Can you explain this?

OP: I just walked out of my Franciscan gathering because my leader and main members believe that female babies do not receive a soul until 40 days after conception.

 

[Bookcat]

you mean…

I meant there what I posted…and only what I posted…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11697320&postcount=61

 

[mkoopman]

I know of the reference to which this teaching refers; although I am no longer near the library which housed a copy. You may note that it was in a treatise that was written by the Marquis DeSade under a psuedonym which implied a master of Catholic theology.

How is it that your Franciscan group is referring to Satanist literature? The origination for finding this treatise was through a search on humonculus which is prominent in the treatise thesis. It actually seems a true Catholic writing until one gets past the first chapter and half, or so. It seems our favorite Marquis may have been inspired by the discovery of a pregnancy within his small gathering of subjects.

Some rare books are difficult to find … for good reason.

It’s not so simply.

What happened:

1. My reflex was to through some bible verses, the Immaculate Conception and quote some Church documents.
2. As I had never heard of such a Catholic teaching; ensoulment for females at 40 days and 80 days for males from the time of fertilization; I found the topic interesting. I found the book mentioned in the OP asked the OP to find out the chapter for me.

 

[JimG]

The fact is, Thomas Aquinas was a great theologian. He knew nothing of embryology. One cannot use his knowledge of embryogenesis or lack thereof, to speak of when ensoulment occurs, because his knowledge of when individual human beings have their beginning as genetically and biologically distinct new individuals was necessarily limited to the medieval biology of the time.

 

[Abba]

The fact is, Thomas Aquinas was a great theologian. He knew nothing of embryology. One cannot use his knowledge of embryogenesis or lack thereof, to speak of when ensoulment occurs, because his knowledge of when individual human beings have their beginning as genetically and biologically distinct new individuals was necessarily limited to the medieval biology of the time.

Yes.

I have not read On The Generation of Animals by Aristotle, but I think it would be interesting to analyze it and see if what Aristotle considered to be required elements in order for the Form to take place is now known to be evidently present at fertilization (given modern science knowledge about DNA and cells etc…). According to what I gathered the Form was able to enter the matter although all the features were not clearly defined of the ultimate product. I am not sure if according to Aristotle’s theory it is sufficient that the marble is marble and if this is the case then given modern knowledge the form can enter the matter at conception. What is not clear to me (because I have not taken the time to read the stuff precisely ) is… well he had an idea about the semen being the activating force of the menstrual blood…Did he even know about the ovum?

Regarding the difference between the time of ensoulment between females and males; well, I don’t know (since I have not read his works on this topic) how much of his reasoning is based on scientific observation and how much on cultural influence. I did get to skim a little of On The Generation of Animals and there Aristotle states that females are “mutilated males”. He really lacked an appreciation for the dignity of females. He did observe some true differences of character that are valid but he saw the females differences as inferior. I think Pope John Paul the Great filled with the Holy Spirit wrote splendidly about the dignity of males and females. It’s impossible after being exposed to the wisdom of Pope John Paul the Great to return to Aristotle and swallow that pill about the inferiority of the females.

I don’t know why Aristotle thought that females developed slower in the womb than males. I think in modern times we understand that although with their differences, males and females develop at that same speed. If this is correct than there would seem to be no reason why Aristotle would maintain ensoulment at different times for males and females.

+++

Summa Theologica delineates St. Thomas Aquinas’s opinion on the moral status of the embryo or fetus and the act of abortion. His discussion of sin, morality, and murder indicates his views on the development of life within the womb. These sections show that Aquinas believed in the progression of life from a “vegetable”-like, unanimated state to an animal life and finally to a human, animated state. Summa Theologica offers no defense of abortion as a permissible act at any stage in the pregnancy, but it does specify that once the fetus has become animated (when he believed ensoulment of the living human being took place), it is homicide to kill it. This measure of ensoulment or delayed hominization (the belief that the embryo or fetus was not a human life with a soul until a particular event after conception) is typically equated with the stage at which quickening took place—defined by Aristotle as forty days for boys and eighty days after conception for girls.
embryo.asu.edu/pages/st-thomas-aquinas

+++

I taking a look in Hebrew at the root of the word used for conception in the OT. This is a nice website. biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Psalm+51&t=kjv

+++

In the Catholic Encyclopedia they try to make it clear that by Conception in the Immaculate Conception it is not meant fertilization.

“…in the first instance of her conception…”

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
+++

Incredible, there was a point in time when people thought that the embryo was a miniature person - preformation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism

I read something about a leech (?) like creature, I think with Aristotle and Aquinas in my skimming at some point. They seem to be speculating about the development of the embryo like a leech (?) because of it’s appearance. Not sure now, cannot find the stuff I was reading.
+++
Aristotle: On the Generation of Animals
esp.org/books/aristotle/generation-of-animals/html/
(It’s book II that covers this topic)

+++
Aristotle’s views on women
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle’s_views_on_women#cite_ref-3

Peace

 

[Lochias]

Please help me know what The Church teaches. I’ve always believed that each baby receives it’s soul at conception – isn’t that what we are taught?
I just walked out of my Franciscan gathering because my leader and main members believe that female babies do not receive a soul until 40 days after conception. They got that from a book by Mary something I forget. They say there is no discrepancy between believing this and still being pro-life, believing that life is sacred from conception to grave, etc. But this just makes no sense. They say males receive their soul at conception, just not females. This seems to mean though that abortion of female babies before 40 days past conception should be fine since with no soul, it can’t really be a human can it???
Anyone - can you help me out here???

…you might want to get in touch with the authorities-that-be concerning your local Franciscan group. I’m pretty sure they’re not supposed to be teaching as fact things that the Church itself has never taught as definitively true or false. (And I say that as a secular Franciscan-to-be, myself.)

 

[ynotzap]

It is generally thought that the human soul is present at conception. The human soul can effect three stages of animation. It can exercise the vegetative animation, it can exercise the sentient animation, and it can exercise the rational animation. The vegetative animation is composed of mater, the sentient animation is composed of mater, the rational animation is spiritual. Since the human soul can accomplish all three functions, a problem arises. At what point does the human soul animate the human body. We certainly grow and live like a plant. We certainly have the senses of the animal, and we grow in the use of our rational powers. Does the baby go through separate stages of animation. When the body developes enough through the lower stages, vegetative, and sentient stages, and then the soul is infused, or is it infused at conception? Frankly it doesn’t really matter IMO, because the baby was conceived to a human mother, this is the way God planned it, therefore it is a human baby and to kill it at any stage is murder. The lower animations are carried out by external motion, one species can transfer motion, or life to another of the same species.by seed and external stimuli, Similarly the animal species can transfer life to it species, and humans do the same by sperm and ovum (human seed) But humans can not transfer Rational life to its own species because it is spiritual That is why we , even though we have animal like characteristic that we are rational being, homo-sapiens, human and not animals. If we quit treating humans like animal and act rationally we are acting the way God wills us to act. and leave insanity behind us. It is the human spiritual soul that gives us our autonomy, our personality, our individuality, our human identity That human babies are humans in the fetus stage of their existence is self-evident and shouldn’t have to be rationalized. Tell this to those of Supreme Court, who voted for abortion, self evident truth is not self evident to some, the Supreme court is not so supreme, and common sense is not so common.

 

[siamus2k13]

???

Were you a Philosophy major?

 

[JimG]

The distinction between vegetative, animal, and rational soul made by the medieval philosophers, it seems to me, is based on large scale observation only. It fails when applied to human development.

We know that plants, animals, and human beings (rational animals) differ in kind. However, these distinctions, when applied to the human embryo, are really not applicable. The embryo does not pass through vegetative, animal, and rational stages. It is distinctly human from day one—something that is only fully apparent from observations of genetics and embryogenesis. Even the human ovum, at fertilization, shows the beginnings of future differentiation. One might say that there is a teleology at work. The new human begins its work of full development at once—animated by a human soul.

Since the soul is the animating principle of the body, I presume that the soul must be present from the beginning. And the body is not in the process of passing from one species to another. It is fully human from the beginning, and in the process of developing into a human adult, a process that continues well past birth.

**

 

[Abba]

This seems to mean though that abortion of female babies before 40 days past conception should be fine since with no soul, it can’t really be a human can it???
Anyone - can you help me out here???

No, it is not fine and the Church has always taught against it - definitively. One thing is what has been left undeclared by the Church, that being the time of ensoulment, but another is abortion - at any point whether the embryo or fetus. The Church has alway taught against it - human soul or not - it’s immoral.

I like this.
St. Basil the Great:
“The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us.”

The Didache
Although it could be argued that as the word ‘child’ was used it meant after ensoulment.

Canon 1398 “a person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.” Abortion here means embryo or fetus as it is the modern use of the term being used here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_1398

"It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life. In the normal course of nature the living embryo carries on its work of, self-evolution within the maternal womb, deriving its nourishment from the placenta through the vital cord, till, on reaching maturity, it is by the contraction of the uterus issued to lead its separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Yet, I must say this is the exact publication which clarifies in the section of the Immaculate Conception that ‘conception’ is not meaning ‘fertilization’ and actually presents the Thomistic understanding as quoted in a post above. There seems to be a discrepancy here. I actually looked up the latin theological terms and there are a bunch which distinguish between the different terms of ‘conception’ and what is actually being conceived.
The Burning Bush -
On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God
books.google.com/books?id=1ixfwIjq4n8C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=conceptio+seminis+carnis&source=bl&ots=uCCa82KHK0&sig=wyAwRyfbnF9gcvNkbPDbdUaCjMc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QCf9Uum0BtDnsAS6xICAAg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=conceptio%20seminis%20carnis&f=false

 

[Abba]

The distinction between vegetative, animal, and rational soul made by the medieval philosophers, it seems to me, is based on large scale observation only. It fails when applied to human development.

Yes. Aristotle was actually using chicken eggs.

One question that I have, (I have been trying to find the section in Aristotle’s writing that cover this) is: how was it that he decided the quickening was a result or when the rational soul entered the embryo? This would suppose that in animal there is no quickening. I just googled: Do baby animals move inside the uterus? And got the answer for: How soon can you feel the puppies move inside the uterus? The answer is 6 1/2 weeks. If the human fetus has an ‘animal’ soul before quickening, how is it that animals move inside the fetus? - is what I would ask Aristotle. wiki.answers.com/Q/How_soon_can_you_feel_puppies_move_in_the_womb?#slide=1

I was just thinking about the firm statement of St. Basil the Great:
“The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us.”

Now, those who hold or held the Aristotelian Thomistic understanding can argue that even here; Saint Basil could have been referring to after ensoulment as he uses the words form and unformed (truly splitting hair, ehum).

Well, I was thinking: does it really matter? It’s murder any way because we would be depriving God from creating a soul for that particular body.

 

[Abba]

???

Were you a Philosophy major?

Nobody is required to have a degree in anything to defend the faith or their position regarding a matter that has not been declared by the Church. If the frontline is with Aristotle than that’s where it is our duty to go. God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Guys we seem to have gone off at tangents.
Lets get back to the intent of the question .

The questioner and their question above seems to be looking to prove the immorality of abortion based on arguments of 'human-ness" (on the basis of ensoulment) or human individuality/personhood from the moment of fertilisation…

Well this approach simply won’t fly very far for reasons most of us are all cogniscant of:
(a) there is no majority agreement either secular or religious amongst sincere and intelligent persons that we are dealing with a “human person/individual” from the moment of fertilisation.
(b) the ensoulment theory (which always incorporated delayed hominisation) was the main position of the Church until about 300 years ago (only a human person after 40 days for boys 80 for girls).
(c) the above Catholic position is no longer the main position due to better science, however it is still an acceptable position. As the recognition of “human person-hood” necessarily involves an element of empirical science (that is clearly assumed by the Church) I do not expect the Church will ever formally define the matter. Which is why the question is still open.
(d) Therefore the Church’s constant, universal and unchanged position on the immorality of abortion at every moment from fertilisation to birth does not solely depend on arguments on “human individuality/personhood.” In fact it has never largely been based on that argument.
(e) It seems to be semi-educated US Catholics (esp the anti-abortion lobby) that has made its own this argument from ensoulment or “human person” angle. It simply isn’t the original basis of the Church’s stand and it is doubtful it can ever be proven by reason to unbelievers.

Its like trying to prove that the Assumption is based on the Bible.
It isn’t. And as Catholics it doesn’t need to be.

Yes the Bible is not opposed to the Dogma, in fact that Dogma makes a lot more sense of what is in the Bible in this area. But it doesn’t clearly contain the Dogma.
It ultimately comes from tradition, the Sensus Fidelii and a pure heart.

 

[Abba]

Guys we seem to have gone off at tangents.
Lets get back to the intent of the question .

The questioner and their question above seems to be looking to prove the immorality of abortion based on arguments of 'human-ness" (on the basis of ensoulment) or human individuality/personhood from the moment of fertilisation…

Well this approach simply won’t fly very far for reasons most of us are all cogniscant of:
(a) there is no majority agreement either secular or religious amongst sincere and intelligent persons that we are dealing with a “human person/individual” from the moment of fertilisation.
(b) the ensoulment theory (which always incorporated delayed hominisation) was the main position of the Church until about 300 years ago (only a human person after 40 days for boys 80 for girls).
(c) the above Catholic position is no longer the main position due to better science, however it is still an acceptable position. As the recognition of “human person-hood” necessarily involves an element of empirical science (that is clearly assumed by the Church) I do not expect the Church will ever formally define the matter. Which is why the question is still open.
(d) Therefore the Church’s constant, universal and unchanged position on the immorality of abortion at every moment from fertilisation to birth does not solely depend on arguments on “human individuality/personhood.” In fact it has never largely been based on that argument.
(e) It seems to be semi-educated US Catholics (esp the anti-abortion lobby) that has made its own this argument from ensoulment or “human person” angle. It simply isn’t the original basis of the Church’s stand and it is doubtful it can ever be proven by reason to unbelievers.

Its like trying to prove that the Assumption is based on the Bible.
It isn’t. And as Catholics it doesn’t need to be.

Yes the Bible is not opposed to the Dogma, in fact that Dogma makes a lot more sense of what is in the Bible in this area. But it doesn’t clearly contain the Dogma.
It ultimately comes from tradition, the Sensus Fidelii and a pure heart.

Excellent post! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/rating/rating_5.gif

You clearly present the situation. There is no point really in proving or disproving this or that. The matter is as you have presented it.

I wasn’t even aware of all this up until this thread. There is a writer in one of those links I pasted on here (Robert Pasnau on Aquinas and Human Nature), who accuses The Church and Catholics of trying to keep all this from other Catholics. I don’t like that, if that is being done. That is, to kind of tuck this situation under the carpet. It is what it is and people should not be deceived.

I am really in accord with Pope Francis when he said that (I paraphrase) that the pro-lifers have become fanatical. To the point that outsiders identify the Church first by being pro-life and other things. What about Jesus? What about that God is Mercy and Love Itself. Now, a situation obviously develops and it is sad. When people come to learn what you stated above who have even buried their fetus or given it names; they are not going to feel good about learning that the Church is not guaranteeing that they actually ever were and will be met in heaven. It is actually why people may appear to over react at learning of such but the wound is deep. So, the pro-lifers should be more responsible. I believe that conception happens at fertilization but, I would not after this thread speak as though it is the official and unequivocal teaching of the Church. I would explain what you stated above (lacking greatly of your eloquence) and note that the Church has guided us to the understanding that conception occurs at fertilization - although it is not an official teaching.